- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
HARIPRIYA SANJAYKUMAR SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT
C/SCA/7224/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7224 of 2015
================================================================ HARIPRIYA SANJAYKUMAR SHAH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================ Appearance:
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR RONAK RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 06/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8. (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to direct the respondent no.3 herein take prompt action on the basis of the communication dated 31-3-2015 issued by the respondent No.1 bearing No.LR- 2/Vashi-1746-Panchmahal-14/15;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an
Page 1 of 3
appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondent No.3 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the record of rights with respect to land bearing Revenue Survey No.29/B/1/2+3/2 and Revenue Survey No.29/B/4/1 and Revenue Survey No.29/B/5 of Moje Vejalpur,
District:Panchmahal;
(D) Pending the admission, hearing and final of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the record of rights with respect to land bearing Revenue Survey No.29/B/1/2 + 3/2 and Revenue Survey No.29/B/4/1 and Revenue Survey No.29/B/5 of Moje Vejalpur,
District:Panchmahal;
(E) To grant such other and further reliefs necessary in the interest of justice;"
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner's husband, Ashwinkumar Jayantilal Shah, has expired on 29.3.2010. Respondent No.4, i.e. Satishkumar Jayantilal Shah has concocted an agreement dated 15.3.2010 i.e. Bin Aveji Fargati Lekh, whereby right of Ashwinkumar Jayantilal Shah is relinquished in favour of respondent no.4. On the basis of such document, mutation entry no.6365 is mutated in favour of respondent no.4. The petitioner, Haripriya Sanjaykumar Shah claims to be having undivided share in the property in question. It is also the case of the petitioner that 135-D notice is also issued at the address wherein respondent no.4 is residing. This contention of the petitioner is disputed. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not heard at the time of making the entry in question. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that
Page 2 of 3
if the petitioner prefers an appeal against the order impugned, they have no objection of it being heard on merits and in accordance with law.
3. As the petitioner is not being heard before making the entry in question and prima facie it also appears that the petitioner has an indefeasible right in the land in question, by consent of all the parties, the petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy which the petitioner has and the petitioner shall file an appeal against the entry in question before the concerned authority within a period of 30 days from today. On such approach of the appeal being filed, the authority concerned shall expeditiously hear and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, after hearing all the concerned parties.
4. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(K.J.THAKER, J)
*malek
Page 3 of 3
Alert